Campaign '04

Kerry and the space vision

SPACE.com has published an “exclusive” report on what Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry thinks about the Vision for Space Exploration and other space policy issues. The answers are somewhat predictable: while strongly supportive of NASA (calling it “an invaluable asset to the American people”), he is skeptical of the exploration plan, saying Bush has not allocated enough resources for it to succeed. Kerry said he supported microgravity and related research on the ISS that would be largely discontinued under the vision, and added that the “most critical element” of the space program should be reliable, low-cost space access. Kerry also gave a noncommittal answer when asked what a Kerry Administration would do to NASA’s budget: “While reducing the Bush Administration’s reckless deficits will be one of our early challenges, continued investment in a reinvigorated NASA that is innovating, creating jobs, and returning real value to the American taxpayer is what you can expect under a Kerry presidency.”

If these answers sound somewhat familiar, they should: Aerospace Daily published an article over a month ago where Kerry campaign staffer Jason Furman said Kerry did not support the exploration plan, calling it too expensive. That article also noted that Kerry would “work with the best scientists” to determine what the appropriate goals of NASA would be in a Kerry Administration.

28 comments to Kerry and the space vision

  • Michael Huang

    “The most critical element of our space program should be reducing the costs and increasing the reliability of space transportation to and from low Earth orbit” – Kerry

    How about dividing this into two goals:
    1. Reliable crew-only vehicle
    2. Experimental low-cost cargo-only vehicles

    The CEV in the Vision for Space Exploration is Goal 1.

  • Chris Webster

    This is a big dissapointment to me. Encouraging microgravity research for the sake of improving life on earth is BS. If Kerry is critical of the solidity of Bush’s space goals he’s going to have to come up with something better than an open ended research plan which may produce some sort of usable results to the world. Although I agree Bush needs to flesh out his vision into goals like “first lunar-regolith derived oxygen production plant by 2009,” the moon to mars report is not quite out yet. After NASA and friends has time to digest the report I hope we’ll see very solid goals laid out.

  • kert

    I’d suggest a correction:

    How about dividing this into two goals:
    1. Reliable crew-only _industry_
    2. Experimental low-cost cargo-only _insdustry_

    Other than that, Kerry is even more vague than GWB, and speaking to best scientists will certainly do no good.

  • Frank Johnson

    “That article also noted that Kerry would “work with the best scientists” to determine what the appropriate goals of NASA would be in a Kerry Administration.”

    Well, NASA may not like what the “best scientists” have to say about the value of, say, experiments in microgravity. Certainly, there are significant effects due to microgravity. However, much of the scientific establishment seems to be of the opinion that it is simply not worth the expenditure.

    It seems likely that a Kerry administration would continue the plans to retire the shuttle and hand-off the space station to the international partners. The Moon-Mars initiative would go, especially if the Republicans lose one or both House of Congress.

    What about the CEV? I think it will continue, if only to keep the contractors/donors and aerospace unions happy.

  • It sounds like a change in tone to me.

    This time there seems to be a recognition on Kerry’s part that even at the worst of economic times, NASA is a source of wealth creation and therefore good value for the taxpayer.

    Sounds like he’s got the message on low cost space access too.

  • If he got the message on low cost access to space he wouldn’t be suggesting that NASA do it:

    Armadillo flies a perfect DC-X-style flight for undre $1 million
    http://www.rocketforge.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=255&mode=flat&order=0&thold=0

    If you want to innovate in space then stop doing it the way NASA is doing it now. Be in Mojave on Monday to see how space is really done.

  • Dwayne A. Day

    Mr. Johnson wrote:
    “Well, NASA may not like what the “best scientists” have to say about the value of, say, experiments in microgravity.”

    True. It all depends upon which “best scientists” he means. The general scientific community would probably advocate closing down the entire human spaceflight program.

    This may simply be a throwaway line by Kerry. However, it is possible that it is meant as a slight dig at the current administration, which has been accused of ignoring scientific advice and circumventing it when necessary.

    Mr. Parkin wrote:
    “This time there seems to be a recognition on Kerry’s part that even at the worst of economic times, NASA is a source of wealth creation and therefore good value for the taxpayer.”

    The problem with this statement is that it is rather dubious. There is no hard economic data indicating that spending money on NASA actually _increases_ wealth. (I don’t want to open an endless discussion of this topic. I’m just pointing out that it is a dubious claim.)

    I suspect that Kerry’s primary interest in NASA at the moment is trying to reassure government workers that he is not currently interested in closing field centers.

    Mr. Johnson wrote:
    “It seems likely that a Kerry administration would continue the plans to retire the shuttle and hand-off the space station to the international partners. The Moon-Mars initiative would go, especially if the Republicans lose one or both House of Congress.”

    Space is low on the agenda for any candidate. But his statements at least make clear that the Vision for Space Exploration will not survive his election. That is more specific than I would have expected.

    There is no way that a Republican Congress could enact the Vision with Kerry in the White House. It is simply impossible.

  • [sarcasm]Well, I’m glad that he’s not going to ask just any old scientists, but the best ones. After all, we all know that science is the only reason to go into space, and that only scientists know anything about it…[sarcasm]

    Too bad he’s not going to ask someone who actually understands space technology and its potential, and is interested in it.

    Donkeys who are in favor of space expansion are going to have a tough choice this fall, if the issue is important to them.

  • Harold LaValley

    I do not wish to execise my one and lonely vote for politicians versus this vision for neither is a perfect candidate. I want this vision to stand seperately from the governmental infuences if possible or at least with a check and balance system to protect it.

  • Frank Johnson

    Mr. Day wrote
    “The general scientific community would probably advocate closing down the entire human spaceflight program.”

    I wouldn’t go that far. I think it is important not to let a vocal minority speak for the majority. In my observation, as a post-doc in a federal lab, there is general sympathy for the goals of space exploration, both human and robotic.

    I think the problem stems from putting forth science as the major justification for the station and shuttle programs. The reality is, these are far from ideal environments for conducting research. It is difficult, for example, to repeat an experiment under identical conditions. Yet to justify the budget NASA has to aggressively promote the research results. To some, this pushes the boundaries of ethics.

    Now, a better question to ask the scientific community would be: shall we do away with human spaceflight, at the same time canceling all the ground based research that NASA funds? Much of the research NASA funds is only peripherally related to the exploration goals. However, NASA is one of several federal agencies that funds basic and applied research. Having many independent sources of funding (as opposed to a single Dept. of Science) is considered to be a strength of the U.S. Federal research system.

    We may be approaching this kind of decision if the Moon-Mars initiative goes forward. Station research will be “realigned” to support exploration goals. This probably means that physical sciences will be curtailed in favor of biology and medical research.

  • Brad

    “The artful dodger” Kerry nuances his way all over the map providing enough contradictory soundbites to satisfy all sides of the space policy debate. Even so, Kerry’s completely uncritical praise of the Clinton administration’s space policy shows it would be back to the past with a Kerry administration.

    Just like Clinton, under Kerry NASA would have ever smaller budgets. Just like Clinton, under Kerry NASA would only conduct unmanned exploration missions. And just like Clinton, under Kerry manned spaceflight would devolve to buying off the Russians and never get beyond LEO.

  • Harold LaValley

    Harold, your wants are irrelevant, unfortunately. Government space programs will always be hostage to politics and politicians.

    Posted by Rand Simberg at June 16, 2004 10:20 AM

    Then it is time for a change and that is what the commission report basically is saying…

    Posted by Harold LaValley at June 16, 2004 10:24 AM

    There is nothing that the administration can do to change the fact that if Kerry wins, this initiative is dead, regardless of what the report says. Sorry.

    Posted by Rand Simberg at June 16, 2004 10:26 AM

    You are assuming that the president will do nothing with the remainder of his term in office and as well to lossing his bid for office over the Iraq situation both of which have there chance of not holding true…

    Posted by Harold LaValley at June 16, 2004 10:31 AM

    I am assuming nothing of the kind.

    Posted by Rand Simberg at June 16, 2004 10:38 AM

  • Perry A. Noriega

    Kerry’s timing one day before the Vision for Space Implementation report is suspicious to me from the get go. And Kerry’s statements that science is the only reason to go into space smacks of Bill Clinton’s emphasis on “Faster, cheaper, better”, which turned into a fraud because anyone who actually builds, launches, and operates hardware in space knows only two of the three is possible at all, and not even possible with cutting the budget to the bone, as Mars Polar Lander and Mars Climate Orbiter demonstrated.
    Kerry also wants to go back to the past, when space served the interests of stasis; geocentric culture exculsively via geocentric culturally based view of what space is for, and what it can do to support that culture, rather than giving birth to a space based culture in a variety of venues for a variety of reasons for a plurality of users, while still making a skeletal framework of infrastructure the private sector can add the muscles, organs, and senses to in a metaphorical sense. Bush’s plan would do that, whereas Kerry would do nothing but go back to the past where space serves only the narrow interests of science, for reasons we now know to be specious, and prospective space based cultures and societies not bound by geocentric limits on materials, energy, and most importantly, thought as to what is possible where, and for who, be damned.
    Anyone who does not see the vivid contrast between these two candidates visions (or lack thereof) for space settlement enabling and development is blind.

  • Dwayne A. Day

    Mr. Noriega wrote:
    “Kerry’s timing one day before the Vision for Space Implementation report is suspicious to me from the get go.”

    Except that, as Dr. Foust noted, the statements are entirely consistent with statements made over a month ago. Furthermore, there is no indication when the written response to questions was actually provided to Space.com. Simply put, the timing probably has more to do with Space.com’s schedule than Kerry’s.

    Mr. Noriega further wrote:
    “And Kerry’s statements that science is the only reason to go into space smacks of Bill Clinton’s emphasis on “Faster, cheaper, better””

    This does not quite make sense. Science is a justification, not a management philosophy. They can be entirely independent of each other. Now if you disagree with it, or have a dim view of scientists in general, that is separate from the management approach selected to achieve the goals.

    Mr. Noriega further wrote:
    “which turned into a fraud because anyone who actually builds, launches, and operates hardware in space knows only two of the three is possible at all, and not even possible with cutting the budget to the bone, as Mars Polar Lander and Mars Climate Orbiter demonstrated.”

    This makes no sense at all. How is FBC a “fraud” when it managed to produce spacecraft like NEAR, Lunar Prospector, Mars Global Surveyor, Mars Odyssey, Spirit and Opportunity, etc.?

    The lesson of MPL and MCO was not that faster better cheaper was unworkable, but that there are clearly limits to how cheaply a mission can be conducted and these missions exceeded them. Another closely-related lesson was that when cutting money from a program there are certain areas where cutting costs is unwise, such as testing and telemetry.

  • Bill White

    What will happen between now and 2008 that cannot be reversed in 2008? Will Kerry interfere with shuttle return to flight and ISS completion?

    After all orbiter return to flight and ISS completion is ALL that really happens between now and 2008 even under the Bush vision.

    Kerry now to be replaced by a pro-space President in 2008 and 2012 might well better serve the long term implementation of the Bush vision – – it will just bear the name of the 43rd President, not the 41st.

    Even I see Kerry as a one termer. 4 more for Bush and then who will run against Hillary in 2008?

  • Bill White

    Ooops, 45th President not 43rd President. ;-)

    Mea culpa!

  • Dwayne A. Day

    Mr. LaValley wrote:
    [snipped comments by both Mr. LaValley _and_ Mr. Simberg]

    Just a minor point of order: I don’t think it is proper/polite for Mr. LaValley to copy Mr. Simberg’s posts from another comment board to this comment board without permission. Reading the stuff above, it looks like Mr. Simberg made the comments here rather than on his own website, which is not what happened. One assumes that if Mr. Simberg wanted to make those comments here, he would have done it himself.

    Now I doubt that Rand really cares in this case. But he has demonstrated an ability to speak for himself on these matters and doesn’t really need anybody else to do the speaking for him.

  • Perry A. Noriega

    Many of the employees at NASA who worked during the Clinton Era remarked that their response to Faster, Better, Cheaper, was that you could have any two of the three, but you could not have all three at the same time. I acknowledge the success of all the spacecraft mentioned by Dwayne. And for the record, I would rather work to make a better, converged, cooperative future in space for every different type and set of users than argue about what we could or should have done in space in the past. But we need to change our ways, use new means, and invent what we don’t have to do so effectively, in terms of not only technology, but advertising, marketing, sales, and promotion of space to the general public, not just the narrow confines of the space community.
    I perceive that politics as we practice it currently, and almost all politicians of every major and minor party as they are, have little or no interest in space settlement/development as the space community envisions it. We need to transform not only NASA, but the space community as well, and change our ways, experiment to find what works to do new things in space for a plurality of users, and do so affordably and for all space advocates present and future. And we need to either incorporate politics into space development/settlement, or bypass politics in creating a spacefaring civilization. What we have now does not work to do this at all well, and it clearly needs to be changed.
    Dwayne, lets work on Networked Means to work together to do real work to make progress in advancing our ability to keep people in space for longer and longer periods of time. Lets work together to make space happen for us. Let’s find ways we can network to fill in the gaps in Bush’s plan, make sure no matter who is President, that a long range, converged framework for moving beyond low earth orbit to every destination, for as many different reasons as there are people who want to go into space for personal reasons that seem good to them, comes to pass. Lets find or invent new financial means and mechanisms to fund space development and settlement, since what we have now via conventional means does not work very well, nor does it allow an individual to add value to any investment they might make in space development, like War Bonds did during World War II.
    We need to make space something the common man and woman knows they have a chance to be a part of in a real, not a vicarious way. And the chance to involve the private sector in space development and make money from their investments in as many ways as is possible is something John Kerry has not answered to my, or anyone else’s satisfaction. Neither has Bush, nor any politician, investment advisor, NASA manager, or anyone in the space or investment communities. But Bush has at least addressed in large part, the convergence problem that has bedeviled the space community over goals, objectives, means, etc, over the last three decades. If we in the space community had been converged and worked together from then to now, we would be on Mars, would have never left the moon, and would now be able to deflect potentially hazardous asteroids instead of just talking about all this.
    The public beyond the space community does not really care about science done in space beyond a narrow, generic focus. They do care about getting more bang for their buck, particularly in this budget constrained, energy limited, reigned in era we are now in. And an enthusiastic minority of people who are growing in numbers are excited by the prospect of they themselves having the chance to fly into space. That is why, in my and other’s opinions in the space activist community, that space settlement, not exploration, not science, not applications, has the best chance to do the most to bring about a spacefaring civilization. And commercial space development has the best chance to generate a near term return on investment from the massive amounts of capital needed to do almost anything in space. Every area of human endeavor is being torn apart and redefined by what I see as a changing of the Ages as is, so why not take what is already happening and turn it to the space community’s advantage, and redirect it as we are able? Let’s be more creative and find, adapt existing ways, or invent new ways of selling space settlement to the common man and woman. Lets find ways to expand beyond the skeletal framework for space infrastructure development that Bush’s Vision for Space Exploration would give us if it is funded. And lets start the work to do this now.

  • Dwayne A. Day

    Mr. Noriega wrote:
    “Many of the employees at NASA who worked during the Clinton Era remarked that their response to Faster, Better, Cheaper, was that you could have any two of the three, but you could not have all three at the same time.”

    And those who said this would be wrong.

    NASA’s faster better cheaper approach should be counted as one of the agency’s major accomplishments during the 1990s, particularly when one considers that it met with opposition from many at NASA.

    Compare the number of robotic planetary exploration missions launched during the 1970s or 1980s with the number launched during the 1990s or the first part of this decade. The simple fact that NASA had no Mars missions for 17 years, then suffered the failure of Mars Observer clearly indicated that something was seriously wrong at the agency. In the past ten years NASA has launched seven Mars missions, losing two (Pathfinder, Mars Global Surveyor, Mars Odyssey, Spirit, Opportunity and the failed Mars Polar Lander and Mars Climate Orbiter).

    Now “faster” and “cheaper” are relatively easy to quantify. “Better” is harder to quantify and this is where people can claim that these missions may be faster and cheaper, but not better. But the problem with that claim is that there are a lot of ways to define better. One of them is simply the decrease in time for data return from a mission.

    Critics might claim that these smaller vehicles carry fewer instruments than the previous monster spacecraft, but NASA is no longer waiting over a decade and a half to get one of these instruments at Mars and get data back from it. That data return is not only good for the scientific discipline (no longer driving people out of the field because they have to wait 17 years for new data) but is good for planning. It allows data to be evaluated and then used to redefine future missions. In fact, this was one of the lessons learned from the MCO and MPL failures–that NASA was launching too quickly and was unable to incorporate both scientific data and engineering lessons into future missions. The MCO and MPL failures should not be viewed as proof that faster cheaper better failed, but as important calibration lessons on just how fast and cheap these missions can be accomplished.

    And even if we look at missions other than Mars the results are impressive. Before the adoption of faster better cheaper nobody would have expected the plethora of planetary exploration missions that have been flown in the past decade.

    (A minor suggestion–use line breaks to separate your paragraphs. The last comment was quite difficult to read without them.)

  • “After all orbiter return to flight and ISS completion is ALL that really happens between now and 2008 even under the Bush vision.”

    Really? Then how does CEV have its first flight in that year? Under a Kerry administration, that won’t happen.

  • What’s particularly amusing about Mr. LaValley’s cut and pasting with my responses is that it shows how dumb his comments are on two sites instead of just one.

  • Perry A. Noriega

    Duayne, I hope you and everyone else does not think we are enemies, or even opponents. We are both members of the space community, and although we may disagree on some things, we have much in common and a common goal in helping to create a spacefaring civilization. I have learned a lot from your books, and look forward to further postings where we both can learn from each other, and to work together as much as practicable to make spacefaring for the common people of the spacefaring nations possible. Best Regards.

  • Bill White

    Rand writes:

    “After all orbiter return to flight and ISS completion is ALL that really happens between now and 2008 even under the Bush vision.”

    Really? Then how does CEV have its first flight in that year? Under a Kerry administration, that won’t happen.”

    WHAT will fly? A test module that remains 4-5 years away from the first crewed flight.

    WHAT is CEV? Other than some Boeing drawings do we have a clue?

    Next question. Are there any assurances the external tank foam insulation issue gets settled? What else will develop between now and orbiter return to flight?

    Even if Ralph Nader or Lyndon LaRouche get elected in 2004, Congress will not allow shuttle orbiter to be re-certified indefinitely and Congress will not allow America to lose all capability to put people in space.

  • “WHAT will fly? A test module that remains 4-5 years away from the first crewed flight.”

    Who knows? Whatever it is, it won’t fly in 2008 if Kerry is elected, so your post is nonsense.

    “WHAT is CEV? Other than some Boeing drawings do we have a clue?”

    Of course not, but whatever it is, it will be more than Boeing (or other companies’) drawings, or it won’t fly in 2008, and if it doesn’t, it reduces the probability of it going up with crew in the next decade. I don’t know why you persist in this ignorant and illogical Bush bashing and pseudo-support for Kerry.

    “Next question. Are there any assurances the external tank foam insulation issue gets settled?”

    Who cares?

  • Harold LaValley

    Ok so this is not exactually a space related post but it is a Kerry related one that effects those at the bottom of the wage scale.

    Kerry Proposes Raising Minimum Wage

    http://galvestondailynews.com/wire.lasso?report=/dynamic/stories/K/KERRY?SITE=TXGAL&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=blank.html

    “Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry on Friday proposed raising the federal minimum wage to $7 an hour by 2007, which he contended would benefit working women more than any other group.
    Kerry’s proposal, which calls for phasing in the $1.85 increase, mirrors Democratic-sponsored plans proposed in the House and Senate. President Bush has supported a federal minimum wage increase, provided that states could opt out and choose not to raise it.”

  • Jeff Foust

    A reminder to Mr. LaValley and other participants that this weblog is focused on space policy issues alone. Please be sure to direct your comments to those topics relevant to space policy, and not to more general Presidential campaign issues.

  • Harold LaValley

    Sorry Jeff: I only made mention of it since it will have a baring on the future wages for the converted Nasa sites.
    It seems like every time the minimum wage has been raised. Lower wages for a given job title the employer is willing to pay is the result.